Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1887-09-22

bitory law of Maine. Congress has said that
wines, brandy and other spirltuous liquors
imported in bottles shall be packed ia
packages containing NOT less than one
dozen bottles in each package, and all such
bottles shall pay an additional duty of three
cents for each bottle. This is what Congress
has thus far seen fit TO do in regard to this
matter by virtue Of this power to regulate
commerce. If il can say that an original
package shall consist of only twelve bottles
each Of one pint, it may say that the original
packages shall consist of only one bottle and
one pint, and thus in effect every importer
becomes protected as retail dealer within
the borders of Maine, of intoxicating liquor
IL this necessary result? Is it just in
depreciation of the constitution and laws of
the country aud salutary or wise adjustment
OF the respective powers of the State and
Nations
Now, gentlemen, do not propose to enter
upon an exhaustive examination of this
question at this time. l do not expect to
determine finally this question here and now ;
out deem 1t my duty to call your attention
to the nature and importance of it as one of
the reasons for the ruling which propose
to give IN this case. The precise question
involved here has never been directly in
volyed IN any decision of the State or Federal
courts, or if directly involved, has not been
considered and determined BY the court
so far as my examination has extended.
Sixty years ago, in the State of Maryland,
there was law requiring an importer of for
elgn merchandise to pay the sum of $50 for a
license, and merchant was indicted and
convicted under that law of Maryland for
selling package of dry goods without hav-
ing paid this license of $50, and the case was
carried TO the supreme court of the United
States, and the law of Maryland was held
unconstitutional as interfering with the regu.
iatlon OF commerce with foreign nations,
among other reasons. And the question was
there discussed where the right of the i'm
porter, which he had acquired by paying q
duty to the government tor bringing goods
into the country, must be regarded as term
inating, when he had fully exercised the priv
ilege which he paid for, after he had paid
duties to the government. And it WAS there
apparently determined that until the goods
had become mingled with the general mass
OF property IN the country they were pro-
tected by this law OF Congress, and that they
might be considered as mingled with the
general properly if the package IN which thew
were introduced had been broken, or if tle
original package had been sold TO some other
person, but that SO long as the package re.
manned In its original form in the hands of
the importer, 1t was not mingled with the
general mass of property and was therefore
protected. But IL was held that the right to
sell IN that original package must be consid-
cred as an ingredient of the right to import
But it will be observed that the question of
police regulations was not involved in that
case at all.
There could be no suggestion that the in
n nr ind TO md a
sale of dry goods in any way affected tle
health or morals of the people or was dee
tructive of the Interests of society. But it is
significant that the learned Chief Justice
Marshal in that case, in answering the objec-
tons raised on the other side, expressly ad-
united this great police power of the States
to prohibit the introduction into the State of
any article destructive of the health or the
lives of its people.
Now 1t Is not IN controversy perhaps here
that the defendant imported the liquors sold
by him In the city of Augusta during the
time named in the indictment. At all events,
for the purposes of this trial say to yon
upon the undispued facts in the case, that it
is your duty t. regard him as the importer of
these liquors. He paid to the government
certain duties for the privilege of importing
those liquors. And it has been contends d by
the learned justices of the Supreme Court of
the United States since the decision in Mary
land to which have referred, and as an
original proposition would seem TO be a wise
just and reasonable doctrine that when an
importer has done that he has eimply paid
tor the privilege of selecting the port where
he will introduce his goods that every i'm
porter is presumed to consider and calculate
the opportunities for finding market in the
community where he introduces his goods ;
that he Is expected to consider the tastes,
the habits and moral tendencies or moral
character and physical necessities OF the ppo
pie where he proposes TO seek market
Then when he pays this duty he simply
brings his goods in search of maraet, and
he must at his peril it would seem to me, de-
termine whether IN the particular State
where he brings ms goods there are police
regulations deemed by the people of that
STATE essential to the manhood and the well
being Of taeir society which prohibit the sale
of those articles and prevent him from find
ing market there. He has obtained in other
words, all he has paid for when he brings the
articles into the Stat in search of a market.
! The right OF the importer ends, when the law
OF self preservation necessarily begins.
The defendant in this case saw fit to select
the port of Portland in the STATE of Maine
to another State, or to another country with
out violation of the laws of the State of
Maine. He even might have brought them
IN here for the purpose of sale to An author
lied commissioner of the STATE of Name if
toey were such pure and unadulterated Ii
quors as are required by law. Therefore he
does acquire something without raising any
conflict between these laws of the State and
nation when he pays for the privilege of
bringing goods into the port of Portland, and
there is no necessary conflict between the
two laws.
Now. gentlemen, as have said, | only
propose TO call your attention to the import
ance of this question for the purpose of ex-
planning my reasons for the rule | give to
you. Ihe legislature of Maine has expressly
forbidden this thing to be done in this State
There is no decision of this State in which
the point had been directly determined and
fully considered by the court, declaring this
law of the State of Maine invalid, or exempt
ing person situated as this defendant vas,
from the operation Of that law, by virtue of
any paramount law. 1t is a well recognized
rule VI procedure that Judge of our State
court. especially at jury trials, will give va
lIdity and force t. the Site law unless it has
been definitely declared by the law court Of
tue State u be Invalid or unconstitutional.
Therefore, for that reason alone, in view of
the Importance of this question, and of the
fact that the precise QleStlOn has not been